Global NEST Journal, Vol 10, No 1, pp 114-122, 2008

Copyright 2008 Global NEST

Printed in Greece. All rights reserved

RECYCLING TECHNIQUES OF POLYOLEFINS FROM PLASTIC WASTES

D.S. ACHILIAS1,*
. ANTONAKOU2
C. ROUPAKIAS1
P. MEGALOKONOMOS1
A. LAPPAS2
Received: 05/04/07
Accepted: 04/05/07

Laboratory of Organic Chemical Technology

Department of Chemistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
GR 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
2
Laboratory of Environmental Fuels and Hydrocarbons
CPERI, GR 570 01 Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece
*to whom all correspondence should be addressed:
e-mail: axilias@chem.auth.gr

ABSTRACT
Disposing of plastic wastes to landfill is becoming undesirable due to legislation pressures,
rising costs and the poor biodegradability of commonly used polymers. In addition,
incineration meets with strong societal opposition. Therefore, recycling either mechanical or
chemical, seems to be the only route of plastic wastes management towards sustainability.
Polyolefins, mainly polyethylene (LDPE or HDPE) and polypropylene (PP) are a major type of
thermoplastic used throughout the world in a wide variety of applications. In Western Europe
alone approximately 22 million tones of these polymers are consumed each year,
representing an amount of 56% of the total thermoplastics.
In the present investigation the recycling of LDPE, HDPE and PP was examined using two
different methods: the dissolution/reprecipitation and pyrolysis. The first belongs to the
mechanical recycling techniques while the second to the chemical/feedstock recycling. During
the first technique the polymer can be separated and recycled using a solvent/non-solvent
system. For this purpose different solvents/non-solvents were examined at different weight
percent amounts and temperatures using either model polymers as raw material or
commercial waste products (packaging film, bags, pipes and food retail products). At all
different experimental conditions and for all samples examined the polymer recovery was
always greater than 90%. The quality of the recycled polymer was examined using FTIR and
DSC. Furthermore, pyrolysis of LDPE, HDPE and PP was investigated with or without the use
of an acid FCC catalyst. Experiments were carried out in a laboratory fixed bed reactor. The
gaseous product was analyzed using GC, while the liquid with GC-MS. A small gaseous and
a large liquid fraction were obtained from all polymers. Analysis of the derived gases and oils
showed that pyrolysis products were hydrocarbons consisting of a series of alkanes and
alkenes, with a great potential to be recycled back into the petrochemical industry as a
feedstock for the production of new plastics or refined fuels.
KEYWORDS: Recycling, Polymers, LDPE, HDPE, PP, Dissolution/reprecipitation, Pyrolysis
1. INTRODUCTION
During last decades, the great population increase worldwide together with the need of
people to adopt improved conditions of living led to a dramatical increase of the consumption
of polymers (mainly plastics). Materials that appears interwoven with the consuming society
where we live. Current statistics for Western Europe estimate the annual total consumption of
plastic products at 48.8 million tons for 2003 corresponding to 98 kg per capita. The same
quantity a decade before, i.e. in 1993 was approximately 64 kg percapita (Plastics Europe
Association, 2007, Association of Plastic Manufacturers, 2007). Over 78 wt% of this total
corresponds to thermoplastics (mainly polyolefins, low density polyethylene, LDPE-17%, high
density polyethylene, HDPE-11%, polypropylene, PP-16%) and the remaining to thermosets
(mainly epoxy resins and polyurethans). Plastics consumption in Greece in 2002 was 515.000
tons with an increasing trend from 2001 to 2002 equal to 10.9% (Plastics Europe Association,

RECYCLING TECHNIQUES OF POLYOLEFINS FROM PLASTIC WASTES

115

2007, Association of Plastic Manufacturers, 2007). Since the duration of life of plastic wastes
is very small (roughly 40% have duration of life smaller than one month), there is a vast waste
stream (approximately 21.2 millions tons for 2003) that reaches each year to the final
recipients creating a serious environmental problem. Despite significant advances in recent
years, 61% of the plastic waste generated in W. Europe is still disposed of to landfill. The rest
39% recovered mainly with three methods. The bigger percentage was been disposed for
energy recovery (4.75 million tons, percentage 22%), while 15% was mechanically recycled
(3.13 million tons), with only 2% recycled chemically (0.35 millions tons) (Plastics Europe
Association, 2007). From the total 370.000 tons of plastic wastes in Greece in 2002 the
percent amount recovered and recycled was approximately 2.2% (Association of Plastic
Manufacturers, 2007).
Disposing of the waste to landfill is becoming undesirable due to legislation pressures (waste
to landfill must be reduced by 35% over the period from 1995 to 2020), rising costs and the
poor biodegradability of commonly used polymers. The approaches that have been proposed
for recycling of waste polymers include (Scheirs, 1998; Achilias and Karayannidis, 2004):
Primary recycling referring to the in-plant recycle of the scrap material of controlled history.
Mechanical Recycling, where the polymer is separated from its associated contaminants and
it is reprocessed by melt extrusion. Chemical recycling leading in total depolymerization to the
monomers, or partial degradation to other secondary valuable materials. Energy recovery as
an effective way to reduce the volume of organic materials by incineration. Among the
recycling techniques, incineration meets with strong societal opposition and mechanical
recycling can be carried out only on single-polymer waste streams. However, the most
attractive method, in accordance also with the principles of sustainable development is
chemical recycling also called as feedstock or tertiary recycling. According to this method
waste polymers can be ether converted to original monomers or other valuable chemicals.
These products are useful as feedstock for a variety of downstream industrial processes or as
transportation fuel.
Polyolefins (LDPE, HDPE, PP) are a major type of thermoplastic used throughout the world in
such applications as bags, toys, containers, pipes (LDPE), houswares, industrial wrappings
and film, gas pipes (HDPE), film, battery cases, automotive parts, electrical components (PP).
In Western Europe alone approximately 21.37 million tones of these three polymers are
consumed each year (data of 2003), representing an amount of 56% of the total
thermoplastics (Plastics Europe Association, 2007). Addition polymers (like polyethylene) in
contrast to condensation polymers (i.e. poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET)) can not be easily
recycled by simple chemical methods (Karayannidis and Achilias, 2007). Instead,
thermochemical recycling techniques like pyrolysis have been proposed as process producing
a series of refined petrochemical products and particularly of a liquid fraction similar with that
of commercial gasoline (Achilias and Karayannidis, 2004).
Thermal cracking of polyolefins is usually carried out either in high temperatures (>700oC), to
produce an olefin mixture (C1-C4) and aromatic compounds (mainly benzene, toluene and
xylene) or in low temperature (400-500oC) (thermolysis) where three fractions are received: a
high-calorific value gas, condensable hydrocarbon oil and waxes (Aguado and Serrano,
1999). In the first case the objective is to maximize the gas fraction and to receive the olefins,
which could be used after separation as monomers for the reproduction of the corresponding
polyolefins (Kaminski et al., 1995). Cracking in lower temperatures leaves a waxy product in
the reactor that mainly consists of parafins together with a carbonized char. The gaseous
fraction can be used for the supply of the energy required for the pyrolysis after burning. The
liquid fraction mainly consists of linear olefins and parafins with C11 C14 carbon atoms with
only traces of aromatic compounds (Aguado and Serrano, 1999). Thermal cracking of
polyolefins proceeds through a random scission mechanism in four steps: initiation,
depropagation, inter- or intra- molecular hydrogen transfer followed by b-scission and
termination. In general, thermal cracking is more difficult in HDPE followed by LDPE and
finally by PP (Uddin et al., 1997). Due to the low thermal conductivity of polymers together
with the endotherm of cracking, thermal pyrolysis consumes large amounts of energy. Thus,
catalytic technologies have been proposed to promote cracking at lower temperatures,

116

ACHILIAS et al.

resulting in reduced energy consumption and higher conversion rates (Manos et al., 2002).
Furthermore, use of specific catalysts allows the process to be directed towards the formation
of a narrower distribution of hydrocarbon products with a higher market value (Aguado and
Serrano, 1999). Heterogeneous catalysis has been investigated extensively using solids with
acid properties. Zeolites of the kind employed in the catalytic cracking of hydrocarbon
feedstocks (Y, ZSM-5, Beta) as well as other well-known acid solids like silica-alumina,
alumina and clays are being the most studied (Manos et al., 2002). Mixtures of these
catalysts like SAHA/ZSM-5, MCM-41/ZSM-5 have been also used. Cracking with acid
catalysts takes place through the formation of carbocations, which requires the presence of
strong acidic regions. Acid strength and textural properties are the main parameters dictating
the performance of acid solids in the catalytic conversion of polymers. Porosity, surface area
characteristics and particle size determine to a large extent the accessibility of bulky
polymeric molecules to the internal catalytic acid sites of the solids. Thus while catalyst
HZSM-5 presents bigger reactivity from HMCM-41 in the cracking of HDPE and LDPE, at the
decomposition of the large molecules of PP the transformation is almost the same with that of
thermal cracking, because cross-section of polymer is very big in order to enter in catalysts
micropores (Aguado et al., 2004).
In the present investigation, the chemical recycling of LDPE, HDPE and PP was examined
using two different methods: the traditional method of dissolution/ reprecipitation and the more
challenging technique of pyrolysis. The first belongs to the mechanical recycling techniques
while the second to the chemical/feedstock recycling. During the first technique the polymer
can be separated and recycled using a solvent/non-solvent system (Papaspyrides et al.,
1994; Poulakis and Papaspyrides, 1994). For this purpose different solvents/non-solvents
were examined at different weight percent amounts and temperatures using either model
polymers as raw material or commercial products (packaging film, bags, pipes, food retail
products). Two solvents were chosen for the recycling process, based on the fact that plastics
can be dissolved in solvents with similar values of the solubility parameter, . These solvents
were xylene [=8,8 cal1/2 cm-3\2] and toluene [=8,9 cal1/2 cm-3\2]. Polyolefins represents,
generally, a value of solubility parameter near to 8,0 cal1/2 cm-3\2. Furthermore, pyrolysis of
LDPE, HDPE and PP was carried out in a laboratory fixed bed reactor, with and without the
use of a commercial FCC catalyst. All compounds in the gaseous and oil pyrolysis fractions
were identified. Conclusions are very encouraging concerning alternative techniques of waste
polymer recycling.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Materials
Model polyolefins (LDPE, HDPE and PP) obtained from Aldrich and different commercial
products (packaging film, bags, pipes, food retail products) made from these polymers. The
solvents used (toluene, xylene, n-hexane) were reagent grade. In some pyrolysis experiments
an FCC catalyst was used with the following characteristics: total surface area: 178.4 m2 g-1,
zeolite area: 58.5 m2 g-1, Z/M: 0.49 and UCS: 24.26 .
2.2 Dissolution/reprecipitation technique
In a first approach, model LDPE, HDPE and PP were used together with different commercial
products containing those polymers. Xylene and toluene were used as solvents, while nhexane as non-solvent. Some other parameters include solvent/non-solvent volume ratio: 1/3,
dissolution temperatures below the boiling point for each solvent (140oC for xylene and 110oC
for toluene) and various polymer concentrations. The experimental process comprised: the
polymer (1 gr) and the solvent (20 ml) were added into a flask equipped with a vertical
condenser and a magnetic stirrer. The system was heated for 30 min to the desired
temperature. Then, the flask was cooled and the solution of the polymer was properly poured
into the non-solvent. The polymer was re-precipitated, washed, filtrated and dried in an oven
at 80oC for 10 h. The recycled polymer was obtained in the form of powder or grains.

RECYCLING TECHNIQUES OF POLYOLEFINS FROM PLASTIC WASTES

117

2.3 Measurements
Fourier-Transform Infra-Red (FTIR). The chemical structure of the model polymers and
waste plastics, before and after the recycling technique was confirmed by recording their IR
spectra. The instrument used was an FTIR spectrophotometer of Perkin-Elmer, Spectrum
One. The resolution of the equipment was 4 cm-1. The recorded wavenumber range was from
450 to 4000 cm-1 and 16 spectra were averaged to reduce the noise. A commercial software
Spectrum v5.0.1 (Perkin Elmer LLC 1500F2429) was used to process and calculate all the
data from the spectra. Thin polymeric films were used in each measurement, formed by a
hydraulic press Paul-Otto Weber, at a temperature 20oC above the melting point of each
polymer.
Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC). The melting temperature, Tm, of model polymers,
waste plastic products, as well as the polymers produced after the recycling procedure was
measured using the Pyris-1 DSC from Perkin Elmer. Samples of approximately 10 mg were
introduced into the appropriate position of the instrument and the heat released was recorded
at a temperature interval 50 to 200oC and a scan rate of 20oC/min. The calorimeter was
calibrated using indium and zinc standards.
2.4 Pyrolysis
All experiments took place in the Laboratory of Environmental Fuels and Hydrocarbons,
situated in CPERI, Thessaloniki, Greece. The reactor (Fig. 1) was filled with 0.7 g of the FCC
catalyst the piston was filled with the polymer (1.5 g). Glasswool was placed in the bottom of
the reactor, the top of the piston and inside the bed in order to separate the catalyst and the
polymer bed. The system was always heated in the presence of N2 (30 ml min-1) and, by using
a temperature controller the temperature of each zone of the furnace was controlled. As soon
as the reaction temperatures were achieved, polymer entered the reactor and the experiment
started. The time of the experiment was 17 min and the reaction temperature 450oC. At the
end of the experiment purging (30 min) was performed. Both the experiment and purging were
performed in the presence of N2. The liquid products were collected in a liquid bath (-17 C) and
quantitatively measured in a pre-weighted glass receiver. The gaseous products were
collected and measured by water displacement. The amount of residue was measured by
direct weighting. The liquid samples were analysed by GC/MS in a HP 5989 MS ENGINE,
while the gaseous products by GC in a HP 6890, equipped with four columns and two
detectors (TCD and FID). The chromatograph was standardized with gases at known
concentrations as standard mixtures.

PYROLYSIS UNIT

Figure 1. The fixed bed reactor system

ACHILIAS et al.

118

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Recycling of polyolefins by the dissolution/reprecipitation technique
The effect of the dissolution temperature and initial polymer concentration on the wt.-%
recovery of the three model polyolefins (LDPE, HDPE, PP) is illustrated in Figures 2 and 3,
respectively. It was observed that at all different experimental conditions the polymer recovery
was always high. Polymer recovery was favoured by an increase in dissolution temperature
and lower concentrations of polymer in solvent.
LDPE
HDPE
PP

LDPE
HDPE
PP

100

20

Di

80

ss 16 40
olu 1
t i o 120 0
n t 10
em
0
pe 8 0
6
ra
tu r
0
e( o 4
C)

Recovery (w
t.-%)

40

90

Recovery (w

60

100

t.-%)

80

P o 25
lym 20
er
i n 15
so
lve 10
nt
(% 5
w/
0
v)

Figure 2. Effect of dissolution temperature on

the % recovery of polymer from model
polyolefins using xylene/n-hexane and 5 %
w/v sample concentration

70

Figure 3. Effect of sample concentration on

the % recovery of polymer from model
polyolefins using xylene/n-hexane at 140oC

The type of polymer used did not affect much the recovery values, while it was observed that
LDPE can be recovered in high values even at low dissolution temperatures. Use of another
solvent (i.e. toluene) in place of xylene did not seem to improve the recovery values. In
contrast, lower amounts of polymer were recovered in some experiments. Therefore, in the
following xylene was always used as a solvent.
Furthermore, the recovery of polyolefins from several waste plastic products, based on these
polymers, appears in Figure 4. According to the experimental values, high polymer recoveries
were measured for all waste samples examined.
100

Recovery (wt.-%)

98

96

LDPE
HDPE
PP

94

92

ca
p

cu
p

ca
p

pi
pe

bo
ttl
e

gl
as
s
tic

pl
as

pa
ck

ag
in
g
fil
ga
m
rb
ag
e
ba
g
fo
od
ba
g

90

Figure 4. Recovery of polyolefins from different waste plastic products by the

dissolution/reprecipitation technique using xylene/n-hexane at 140oC and 5 %w/v sample
concentration

RECYCLING TECHNIQUES OF POLYOLEFINS FROM PLASTIC WASTES

119

Subsequently, the quality of the product before and after the recycling technique was
investigated. Indicative spectra for PP based materials are presented in Figure 5.

00

Heat Flow (Endo Up)

80

PP - Model
PP - Recycled model
PP - Waste product
PP - Recycled waste product

60

40
PP - Model
PP - Waste product
PP - Recycled model
PP - Recycled waste product

20

0
4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

Wavenumber, cm

1500

1000

50

100

500

200

Temperature ( C)

-1

Figure 5. FT-IR spectra of PP based

materials before and after recycling

150

Figure 6. DSC scans of PP based materials

before and after recycling

Comparing the FT-IR spectra of the solid obtained after recycling of either model polyolefins
or waste products with that of the corresponding model polymer identified the polymer
recovered with this technique. As it can be seen, in all cases the same peaks were recorded
and all four lines almost coincide. In advance, the melting temperature of all products before
and after recycling, were measured and are illustrated in Table 1. No significant difference
was observed between the values measured before and after recycling for all model polymers
and waste samples. However, a small difference was noticed between the values of the virgin
model polymer and the waste sample based on this polymer for LDPE and HDPE. This is
probably attributed to admixtures of additives in the commercial waste products, which was
also observed in the melting thermograms, as broader curves (Figure 6).
Table 1. Melting temperature (oC) of model and waste plastic products before and after the
recycling technique
Polymer
Sample

LDPE

HDPE

PP

Model

115

140

165

Model recycled

113

136

163

Waste plastic product

120

127

163

Waste plastic product recycled

120

127

163

3.2 Recycling of polyolefins by pyrolysis

Thermal cracking or pyrolysis, involves the degradation of the polymeric materials by heating
in the absence of oxygen (usually in a nitrogen atmosphere). During pyrolysis at increased
temperatures, depending on polymer type, either end-chain, or random scission of the
macromolecules occurs. In the first case (occurring in poly(methyl methacrylate)) the
monomer can be produced in a large amount, while in the second, occurring mainly in
polyolefins (LDPE, HDPE, PP) the amount of monomer produced is very low. A review on the

ACHILIAS et al.

120

current trends in polyolefin chemical recycling has appeared in literature (Achilias et al.,
2006).
In this investigation, results are presented for the pyrolysis of model LDPE, HDPE and PP
with or without the use of an acid FCC catalyst. The values measured for the product yield
appear in Table 2.
Table 2. Experimental conditions and product yield from the thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of
LDPE, HDPE and PP.
Temperature
(C)

Catalyst

%)

Liquid (wt.%)

LDPE

450

1.4

22.2

76.4

HDPE

450

1.7

21.6

76.7

PP

450

4.1

49.3

46.6

LDPE

450

FCC

0.5

46.6

52.9

HDPE

450

FCC

0.5

38.5

61.0

PP

450

FCC

6.2

67.3

26.5

Polymer

Gas

(wt.-

Residue
(wt.-%)

It is seen that since pyrolysis temperature is rather low a small gaseous fraction was obtained
from all polymers. The presence of catalyst lead to increased amounts of the liquid fraction
accompanied by decreased gaseous fraction and residue. It was also observed that the
relative amounts of gas and liquid fraction are very much dependent on the type of polymer
used. Thus, higher decomposition was observed in PP, followed by LDPE and finally HDPE. It
seems that less crystalline or more branched polymers are less stable in thermal degradation.
However, the type of products formed is not so much dependent on the polymer type, as it is
illustrated in Tables 3 and 4 for the gaseous and liquid composition, respectively.
Table 3. Composition of the gaseous fraction from the thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of
LDPE, HDPE and PP (wt % on polymer)
Polymer
LDPE

HDPE

PP

LDPE

HDPE

PP

FCC

FCC

FCC

H2

0.007

0.002

0.030

0.001

0.001

0.002

CO2

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

CO

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

CH4

0.017

0.004

0.085

0.002

0.001

0.030

C2H6

0.047

0.009

0.115

0.003

0.002

0.072

C2H4

0.038

0.011

0.224

0.004

0.002

0.026

C3H8

0.106

0.025

0.066

0.011

0.007

0.060

C3H6

0.111

0.130

0.645

0.068

0.058

1.101

nC4H10

0.310

0.441

0.445

0.190

0.176

2.565

nC5

0.167

0.366

0.672

0.050

0.057

1.003

iC5

0.234

0.254

1.054

0.080

0.119

0.664

C6(+)

0.311

0.465

0.775

0.047

0.062

0.717

Total

1.348

1.708

4.111

0.456

0.485

6.240

Catalyst

RECYCLING TECHNIQUES OF POLYOLEFINS FROM PLASTIC WASTES

121

As it can be seen from Table 3, concerning the composition of the gaseous fraction, in all
polymers examined a series of alkanes and alkenes are produced from C1-C5 with the greater
percentage for all samples observed at C4. It seems that after the initial removal of short or
long branches in the macromolecular chain the mechanism of degradation remains the same
independent of the polyethylene type. Cracking of all polyolefins also did not lead to the
production of CO or CO2, since in the polymer molecules there exist not any oxygen atoms.
Finally, the compounds identified in the liquid fraction from pyrolysis appear in Table 4. A
mixture of hydrocarbons was determined for all three samples in the region of commercial
fuels. The main part consisted of aliphatic compounds (normal and iso alkanes and alkenes),
with only a small proportion of aromatic substances. This again is due to the rather low
pyrolysis temperature. Furthermore, the existence of the catalyst increased the amount of
hydrocarbons in the region C7 to C13 and decreased the higher than C15 compounds. This
fact, in combination with the formation of some aromatic compounds leads to the conclusion
that the existence of the FCC catalyst leads to a production of a probable better type of fuel in
the liquid pyrolysis fraction, when it is used.
A typical GC-MS diagram for the liquid fraction taken from LDPE pyrolysis is illustrated in
Figure 7. Characteristic lines for hydrocarbons with different number of carbon atoms appear.
Also it is clear that these are not single lines, meaning the existence of alkanes, alkenes and
alkadienes having the same number of carbon atoms.
Table 4. Compounds identified in the liquid fraction of the thermal and catalytic pyrolysis of
LDPE, HDPE and PP (wt.-% on liquid fraction)
LDPE
FCC

HDPE
FCC

PP
FCC

LDPE
-

HDPE
-

PP
-

i-C6

2.9

1.6

0.1

2.3

C7

0.8

1.9

i-C7

1.4

2.9

1.0

0.6

0.4

2.2

C8=

3.9

2.0

3.4

0.8

0.5

i-C8

0.3

1.8

2.1

1.0

0.6

0.4

C9

1.4

4.3

2.6

0.8

0.4

2.6

C10

8.0

5.7

5.2

1.9

3.0

4.6

C11

6.4

2.5

4.1

3.2

3.9

5.3

C12

8.1

4.7

9.1

3.4

5.9

2.2

C13

3.7

2.9

1.8

1.4

1.8

C14

7.9

6.1

6.3

3.7

9.7

0.9

C15(+)

38.4

36.5

37.7

59.1

50.1

48.6

Naphthenes

7.1

21.4

7.9

3.9

7.7

19.2

Aromatics

2.9

0.8

0.6

0.1

Other
compounds

9.7

3.6

16.6

20.1

16.0

11.6

Polymer
Catalyst

4. CONCLUSIONS
The recycling of LDPE, HDPE and PP was examined by both a dissolution/reprecipitation
technique and pyrolysis. The first leads to high recovery of polymer with the disadvantage of
using large amounts of organic solvents. Pure polymer from waste plastics can be easily
recovered with this technique. Pyrolysis seems to be the most promising technique resulting
in an oil and gaseous product. Both fractions have a mainly aliphatic composition consisting
of a series of alkanes and alkenes of different carbon number with a great potential to be
recycled back into the petrochemical industry as a feedstock for the production of new

ACHILIAS et al.

122

plastics or refined fuels. The addition of an FCC catalyst improved the quality of the liquid
fraction. This research is continued further by examining pyrolysis of polyolefin mixtures, as
well as commercial waste products based on these polymers.
Abundance
TIC: B0
6
0
4
0
6
A.D
8
5
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
7
5
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
5
.0
0

1
0
.0
0

1
5
.0
0

2
0
.0
0

2
5
.0
0

3
0
.0
0

3
5
.0
0

4
0
.0
0

4
5
.0
0

5
0
.0
0

5
5
.0
0

6
0
.0
0

Time-->

Figure 7. GC-MS chromatogram of the liquid fraction obtained from LDPE pyrolysis
Aknowledgements
This work was funded by the .../...... in the framework of the research program
PYTHAGORAS II, Metro 2.6 (Code 80922).
REFERENCES
Achilias D.S. and Karayannidis G.P., (2004), The chemical recycling of PET in the framework of
sustainable development, Water, Air & Soil Pollution: Focus, 4, 385.
Achilias D.S., Megalokonomos P. and Karayannidis G.P., (2006), Current trends in chemical
recycling of polyolefins, J. Environ. Prot. Ecology, 7, 407.
Aguado J. and Serrano D.P., (1999), Feedstock Recycling of Plastic Wastes, The Royal Society of
Chemistry, (Series Editor J.H. Clark), Cambridge.
Aguado J., Serrano D., Escola J., Rodriguez, J. and San Miguel G., (2004), An investigation into
the catalytic degradation of LDPE using Py-GC/MS, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol., 73, 79.
Assosiation of Plastic Manufacturers (2007) www.apme.org (March 2007)
Kaminski W., Schlesselmann B. and Simon C., (1995), Olefins from polyolefins and mixed plastics
by pyrolysis, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol., 32, 19.
Karayannidis G.P. and Achilias D.S., (2007), Chemical recycling of poly(ethylene terephthalate),
Macromol. Mater. Eng., 292, 128.
Manos, G., Yusof, I., Gangas, N.H. and Papayannakos, N. (2002), Tertiary recycling of
polyethylene to hydrocarbon fuel by catalytic cracking over aluminum pillared clays, , Energy
& Fuels, 16, 485.
Papaspyrides C.D., Poulakis, J.G. and Varelides P.C., (1994), A model recycling process for
LDPE, Res. Conserv. Recycl., 12, 177.
Plastics Europe Association (2007) www.plasticseurope.org (March 2007)
Poulakis J.G. and Papaspyrides, C.D., (1995), The dissolution/reprecipitation technique applied on
HDPE: Model recycling experiments, Adv. Polym. Technol., 14, 237.
Scheirs J., (1998), Polymer Recycling, J. Wiley & Sons, W. Sussex.
Uddin A., Koizumi K. and Sakata Y., (1997), Thermal and catalytic degradation of structurally
different types of polyethylene into fuel oil, Polym. Degrad. Stab., 56, 37.